Form 779 Oklahoma 2020: Fill & Download for Free

I have no idea how they can manage to maintain this myth.Obama cut deficit spending by almost 2/3. Clinton cut deficit spending so much he completely eliminated it. The last Republican who cut the deficit was EISENHOWER IN 1960!!! Reagan TRIPLED the debt! W. increased deficit spending from BALANCED BUDGET when he started to $1.4 Trillion for the last budget he passed. Now Trump has DOUBLED deficit spending, and raised the national debt from $19.9 Trillion to more than $24 Trillion before January 2021.U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Timehttps://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/currentPresident Clinton announces another record budget surplusSeptember 27, 2000WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.""Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years."The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations."I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said."These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston."This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.///President Clinton: The United States on Track to Pay Off the Debt by End of the DecadeDecember 28, 2000Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President's commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today's new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):The United States can be debt-free this decade. By dedicating the entire budget surplus to debt reduction, The United States can eliminate its publicly held debt by FY 2009. The next Administration and Congress will need to decide what priorities to address: eliminate the public debt by FY 2010 and still use part of the surplus for responsible tax cuts, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and investments in key priorities like education and health care.The national debt is projected to be paid down by $237 billion this year. Under the budget President Clinton and Congress completed two weeks ago, the U.S. is projected to pay down $237 billion of the national debt in FY 2001.The 4 year total debt paydown will be $600 billion. Over the last three years, we have already paid down $363 billion in debt. Therefore, The United States is on track to reduce the debt by $600 billion over four years, the largest four-year debt pay-down ever.Record deficits have become record surpluses. This Administration has have moved the country from a deficit of $290 billion in FY 1992 to an expected surplus of $256 billion in FY 2001. Eight years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $513 billion deficit in FY 2001. Thus, the fiscal picture is now projected to improve by $769 billion in FY 2001 alone.Nine consecutive years of fiscal improvement. FY 2001 will be the fourth year in a row of overall surpluses and the second year in a row of a surplus without counting Social Security or Medicare. It will be the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement, the longest such period in history.ON TRACK TO ELIMINATE THE DEBT THIS DECADEThe U.S. is on track to eliminate the publicly held debt this decade. Under OMB's new baseline projection, the public debt would be eliminated in FY 2009. This budget "baseline" by definition includes no new initiatives or policy changes and therefore the entire budget surplus is dedicated to debt reduction (including the Social Security, Medicare, and on-budget surpluses). A fiscally responsible budget that includes new investments in moderate tax relief, a Medicare prescription drugs proposal, and key domestic priorities could eliminate the public debt by FY 2010.Pay down of $600 billion in debt over four years. In FYs 1998, 1999, and 2000, the debt held by the public was reduced by $363 billion. The U.S. government is projected to pay down an additional $237 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year alone (FY 2001). That will bring the total debt pay-down to $600 billion—the largest four-year debt pay-down in American history. In contrast, under the 12-year tenure of Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.The debt held by the public will be cut in half ($3.2 trillion lower) in FY 2001 than it was projected to be when President Clinton took office. In 1993, the debt held by the public was projected by the Office of Management and Budget to balloon to $6.4 trillion by FY 2001. Instead, shrinking deficits—and then the growing surpluses of the last four years—will bring the debt down to $3.2 trillion in FY 2001, $3.2 trillion less than projected in 1993. In FY 1993, the debt held by the public was 50 percent of GDP and projected to rise to 68 percent of GDP in FY 2001. Instead, it will be slashed to 31 percent of GDP this year and can be completely eliminated this decade.Interest payments on the debt will be $166 billion lower than projected. In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $376 billion in FY 2001. Tough choices in 1993 and 1997 and a commitment to fiscal discipline have slashed this figure by $166 billion, a 44 percent reduction.LARGEST UNIFIED SURPLUS EVERInstead of a $513 billion deficit, there will be a $256 billion surplus this year. In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion—the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $513 billion by FY 2001. In fact, the unified budget will be in surplus by $256 billion in FY 2001—the fourth consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Over 10 years, the non-Social Security surplus alone is estimated to be over $2.4 trillion. Not including Social Security and Medicare surpluses, the surplus is projected to be $1.9 trillion.Largest unified surplus as a percent of GDP since 1948. The 2001 surplus is projected to be 2.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the largest surplus as a ratio to the GDP since 1948.The fourth consecutive year with a surplus for the first time in over 70 years. The FY 2001 surplus of $256 billion follows surpluses of $237 billion in FY 2000, $124 billion in FY 1999, and $69 billion in FY 1998. The last time The United States had four surpluses in a row was over 70 years ago, during 1927-30. The FY 2001 surplus will mark the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement. This is the longest run of consecutive years of improvement in American history, surpassing the pre-Clinton-Gore best of five straight years.REDUCING SPENDING WHILE CUTTING TAXES FOR MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIESFederal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest since 1966. Spending restraint under President Clinton has brought federal spending down from 22 percent of GDP in 1992 to 18 percent of GDP in 2001, the lowest since 1966. At the same time, President Clinton has increased strategic investments in education, technology, and other areas that are vital to growth.The smallest federal civilian workforce in 40 years. The Federal civilian workforce increased from the time when President Reagan took office to the time when President Bush left office. In contrast, since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Federal civilian workforce has been cut by 377,000—by nearly a fifth – and is now smaller than at any time since 1960.While balancing the budget, running large surpluses and paying down the debt, the Clinton-Gore Administration has provided tax relief for working families. The tax cuts signed into law by the President in 1993 and 1997—including the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, the $500 child tax credit, the $1,500 Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, and expanded IRAs—have cut taxes for American working families. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in over 30 years.What Fiscal Discipline Means For The United StatesLower interest rates cut mortgage payments by $2,000 a year for families with a $100,000 mortgage. As a result of President Clinton's policy of deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, effectively a large tax cut.Lower interest rates cut car payments by $200 a year for families with a car loan.Lower interest rates cut student loan payments by $200 a year for someone with a typical student loan.Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth. With the government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, businesses have more funds for productive investment. This has helped to fuel average real annual increase of more than 13 percent in private investment in equipment and software since 1993, including eight years in a row of double-digit growth. This compares to a 4.7 percent annual growth rate from 1981-92, a period that saw the debt held by the public quadruple.Rising investment has contributed to an increase in productivity growth. Non-farm business productivity has grown at a 3.1 percent average annual rate for the last four years and 4.8 percent over the last year. This compares to 1.4 percent growth from the 1970s through the early 1990s.Interest payments would be eliminated on the publicly held debt. Currently, we spend 11 cents of every federal dollar on interest payments. These payments, which were once projected to grow to 23 percent of all federal spending in 2010, could be eliminated by that time under a fiscally prudent budget.Prepare for the retiring baby boomers. Paying off the debt will create room in the budget for the increased Social Security and Medicare costs when the baby boomers retire. It will also free up funds for investment, help keep interest rates low, and boost workers' productivity and incomes. This fiscal discipline is the best way to prepare the government and the nation to meet the challenge of the retirement of the baby boom generation.///Federal Deficit Hits Record $374BAugust 26, 2003The federal budget deficit hit a record $374.2 billion in 2003, the administration reported Monday, as the costs of the war in Iraq, a new round of tax cuts and economic weakness pushed the government's red ink to the highest level in history.Providing a final accounting of the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the administration said that the 2003 deficit was more than double last year's imbalance of $157.8 billion. In dollar terms, the 2003 figure easily surpassed the old record of $290.4 billion set in 1992 when President Bush's father was president.However, Bush administration officials noted that the 2003 deficit represented just 3.5 percent of the country's total economic output, below the 5 percent and 6 percent levels hit in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. The administration prefers to link the deficit to total economic output as a better measure of the country's ability to carry the debt burden.The back-to-back deficits in 2002 and 2003 represent a significant turnaround in the country's fiscal fortunes after four consecutive years of budget surpluses. That was the longest such stretch since the 1920s, as government coffers were swollen by rising income tax revenues, reflecting the record-long 10-year economic expansion which ended with the recession that began in March 2001.That recession and weak economic growth since then, plus three rounds of tax cuts pushed through Congress by the president and rising government spending to bolster homeland security and fight a global war on terrorism have sent the deficits soaring.Democrats have zeroed in on the deficits as a symbol of what they contend is Mr. Bush's mismanagement of the economy, arguing that the president's emphasis on tax cuts has squandered projected surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over 10 years.///Trump economyBudget Analysts Give Grim Projections for US Debt LevelsJune 26, 2018A budget scorekeeper for U.S. lawmakers projected that federal debt compared to the size of the economy will reach 78 percent this fiscal year, the highest level in nearly seven decades, and that it will grow sharply from there over the next three decades.The Congressional Budget Office predicts the debt will grow as government revenue flattens out in the next few years in relation to the size of the economy. Meanwhile, spending on Social Security, Medicare and interest payments will jump.Keith Hall, the CBO's director, said the prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges.For example, the debt could make it more difficult for the U.S. to respond to a financial crisis through tax cuts or spending increases.The CBO's report emphasized that more of the government's spending in the coming decades will be dedicated to servicing the debt, to the point that interest payments by 2048 could equal spending for Social Security, currently the largest federal program.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the report to criticize the tax cuts that went into effect this year."The Republican strategy is clear: increase the deficit on behalf of special interests, then use that as an excuse to slash benefits that hardworking Americans have earned," Schumer said. "Democrats will do everything possible to prevent that from happening."Republicans have said the tax cuts were necessary to grow the economy and would pay for themselves in the long run. They've sought to respond to concerns about spending by trying to cut almost $15 billion in unused government money slated for children's health insurance and other programs, but the measure faltered in the Senate.CBO's numbers assume that Congress will act to prevent the debt from growing more rapidly by cutting spending and letting many of the recent tax cuts expire.If tax and spending policies are extended, which is likely, "the fiscal situation will be much more dire," said the Committee for a Responsible Budget, a budget watchdog.///U.S. Debt On Track to Grow to 'Highest Level in U.S. History by Far' Says CBOBy Nicole Goodkind 6/26/18America’s growing budget deficit will increase debt to the highest level in U.S. history by far, according to the Congressional Budget Office 2018 long-term budget outlook.If current laws remain the same, U.S. debt is on track to exceed the size of the economy by 2031. By 2048, federal debt will double to 152 percent of the economy. “The prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” wrote CBO director Keith Hall in a statement.As the American population ages, Social Security and Medicare spending will increase significantly, explained the report. Interest payments on outstanding debt will also become a large source of spending.///National debt jumps $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2018by Pete Kasperowicz | October 01, 2018The national debt rose more than $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that just concluded on Sept. 30, according to a government website that tracks the debt.The total national debt was $20.245 trillion on the last business day of fiscal year 2017.On the last business day of fiscal year 2018, which was Friday, Sept. 28, the total debt had grown to $21.516 trillion. Friday was the first day in history the national debt rose above $21.5 trillion.The increase is just the latest sign that borrowing is on the rise.Last month, the Congressional Budget Office said federal borrowing through the first 11 months of fiscal year 2018 hit $895 billion, $222 billion higher than the first 11 months of the prior year.The budget deficit alone is set to soar above $1 trillion by 2020, as they did during President Obama's first term. But the federal borrowing also takes place outside its formal budget, including for various loan programs, and the pace of growth in the debt has already exceeded $1 trillion per year at times.In addition to the $1.2 trillion increase in the national debt in the last fiscal year, it took a little more than six months for the debt to rise from $20 trillion to $21 trillion.Conservatives in Congress have complained that spending remains unchecked, which will lead to only higher deficits in the years to come. But they could only watch in February when GOP leaders and President Trump reached a two-year spending deal that is set to boost federal spending by a total of $300 billion in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.Under current law, the government is allowed to borrow as much as it wants through March 1, 2019. After that, the debt ceiling will take effect again, and prevent the government from borrowing anything above the level of debt on that date.Congress in recent years has avoided this limit by suspending the debt ceiling again.///The US posted a $234 billion budget deficit last month, the biggest one-month deficit in historyBob Bryan Mar. 22, 2019The US budget deficit hit $234 billion in the month of February, up 8.7% compared to the same month last year.The February budget deficit was also the highest one-month deficit on record, eclipsing the previous record set in 2012.The deficit is growing as the GOP tax law slows revenue intake and the bipartisan budget deal drives up spending.The US posted a record budget deficit in the month of February, according to a new report form the Treasury Department.The budget deficit for February came in at $234 billion, according to the Treasury, higher than the previous monthly record of $231.7 billion set in 2012. The deficit was also 8.7% higher than the $215.2 billion deficit posted in February 2018.The budget deficit measures the shortfall of government revenues compared to what the government spends. Recent legislative changes have driven the deficit up to its highest levels since the financial crisis.The deficit for the first five months of the government's 2019 fiscal year, which runs from October 2018 through October 2019, hit $544.2 billion — up 40% from the first five months of fiscal year 2018.Read more:Trump once promised to eliminate the national debt in 8 years — but his new budget shows the president is going in the opposite direction»The growing deficit has been fueled by two big factors. First, President Donald Trump's and the GOP's tax reform law — named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) — has caused revenues to slide. According to the Treasury, revenue for the first five months of fiscal year 2019 is down a little less than 1% compared to the same period the year before.Second, spending is soaring due to the bipartisan budget compromise from early 2018 and long-term programs. Spending for the start of fiscal year 2019 is up 9% compared to the same time period last fiscal year.The news comes as concerns about the debt have piled up in recent months. The budget deficit for the full 2018 fiscal year hit $779 billion, the highest since 2012. The US also issued just over $1.3 trillion in new debt during the 2018 calendar year, the most for any calendar year since 2010.Based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office, it won't get any better with the deficit expected to top $1 trillion by fiscal year 2022. Even the president's own budget estimated that the deficit will top $1 trillion next fiscal year.///THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE COST; WHITE HOUSE CUTS ESTIMATE OF COST OF WAR WITH IRAQBy ELISABETH BUMILLERDEC. 31, 2002The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.Mr. Daniels cautioned that his budget projections did not mean a war with Iraq was imminent, and that it was impossible to know what any military campaign against Iraq would ultimately cost.''This is nothing more than prudent contingency planning,'' Mr. Daniels said from his home in Indianapolis, where he was reviewing the fiscal 2004 budget at his kitchen table. ''At this point there is no war.''Mr. Daniels's projections place the cost of an Iraq war in line with that of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, which cost more than $60 billion, or about $80 billion in current dollars. But the United States paid for only a small part of that conflict, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan bearing the brunt of the costs.This time, the gulf nations are less supportive of the United States and, diplomats say, Americans are likely to bear most of the cost of a war with Iraq.Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs, or why it was less in current dollars than the 43-day gulf war in 1991. He also declined to specify how much had been budgeted for munitions and troops.''All of these are major costs,'' he said.The driving expense for the military in any war would be the size of the American force and the length of the conflict. In the 1991 war, 550,000 American troops were based in Saudi Arabia, which picked up the cost of virtually all housing, fuel and food.If President Bush orders an attack against Iraq, the American force would be half the size of that in the 1991 war. The Pentagon's war plans call for deploying as many as 250,000 military personnel, but the initial offensive should start with a much smaller number, with a sizable force in reserve.The budget director's projections today served as a more politically palatable corrective to figures put forth by Mr. Lindsey in September, when he said that a war with Iraq might amount to 1 percent to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product, or $100 billion to $200 billion. Mr. Lindsey added that as a one-time cost for one year, the expenditure would be ''nothing.''Mr. Lindsey was criticized inside and outside the administration for putting forth such a large number, which helped pave the way for his ouster earlier this month. He could not be reached for comment this evening. (Congressional Democrats have estimated that the cost would be $93 billion, not including the cost of peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts after a war.)But today, Mr. Daniels sought to play down his former colleague's remarks. ''That wasn't a budget estimate,'' he said. ''It was more of a historical benchmark than any analysis of what a conflict today might entail.''Pentagon officials say the cost of munitions in a potential war with Iraq will not be materially more than the cost of munitions in the 1991 gulf war. The reason, they say, is that the military now uses more precision-guided bombs, which are far more accurate, so fewer are needed.In 1991, about 10 percent of bombs and munitions were precision guided. In the conflict in Afghanistan, the share of precision weapons rose to about 60 percent.Although precision-guided bombs cost more than conventional munitions, they are not always exorbitantly more expensive, at least by Pentagon standards. Many of the ''smart'' bombs used in Afghanistan, for example, were simply 2,000-pound unguided bombs with a $20,000 mechanism attached to the bomb's tail that allowed it to be steered to a target by satellite.The major costs of an Iraq war, Pentagon officials say, will be those for dispatching tens of thousands of military personnel overseas, feeding and sheltering them, and maintaining equipment deployed to the gulf.Mr. Daniels said that Mr. Bush had been kept apprised of the budget projections for a war with Iraq and that all preparations were still in the realm of the theoretical. ''At this point,'' he said, ''our position is that the president has made no decision.''The cost of any war with Iraq would not be part of the budget for the 2004 fiscal year that Mr. Daniels is reviewing. Rather, the money would have to be appropriated as emergency spending by Congress. The cost of a war would also not be part of a record $355 billion military spending measure approved by Congress this year.Mr. Daniels declined to specify the amount of a likely deficit for fiscal 2004, but he described the tax cuts scheduled to take place that year as only a ''minor factor'' in the red ink. Critics of the administration's tax cut acknowledge that the costs of the tax cuts will grow to large numbers only in 2006.He laid blame for the deficit on the sluggish economy and the slump on Wall Street and said there would be deficits without the administration's tax cuts. After four years of surpluses, the Bush administration announced a deficit of $159 billion for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30. It has projected a $109 billion deficit for the current fiscal year.Mr. Daniels said today that the budget for the 2004 fiscal year is one of ''moderate growth'' and that he was not projecting any immediate return to a balanced budget.''Last year was a year when we presented a lot of new spending,'' he said. ''This year we've said we'll be looking at much lower growth. The big reasons for that are the flatness in revenue and the return of deficits, as well as the uncertainty in the potential expansion of the war on terror.''Daniels estimate came a full six weeks after then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's own incorrect estimate: that said the war would last "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."///Initial Cost Estimates For The Iraq War Were Almost Too Low To BelieveGeoffrey IngersollMar. 20, 2013The U.S. will shell out somewhere as much as $6 trillion dollars for the Iraq War, once all is said and done, according to a recent report out of Brown University.According to Reuters, that figure includes $1.7 trillion spent so far with an additional $490 billion in benefits. Other expenses, including interest (and care for wounded veterans), could well mean that the expenses will balloon to as much as $6 trillion in total.As Dave Weigal of Slate points out, that figure is well above the initial $60 billion dollar estimate that came from the Congressional Budget Office in the months leading up to the war.It's possible that their estimate came as a result of the skewed idea that the entire war could be waged in months. There are folks who defend the originator of that figure — Mitch Daniels, then head of the CBO — by saying that the estimate was for only six months of war.Daniels estimate came a full six weeks after then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's own incorrect estimate: that said the war would last "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."